- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 19:28:04 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 19/11/2021 18:19, Jeremy Echols wrote: > The "it's a minor nuisance for only a small section of the populace" argument does not hold water in my opinion. I can easily make a case that small fonts with 3:1 contrast are "just a nuisance" and that the workaround is to use the browser zoom. That doesn't make it okay to do. There are a lot of things that are not okay to do which aren't explicitly covered by WCAG in general either. Fundamental aspects that can literally make or break somebody's ability to use a site altogether. I'm arguing that "links vs buttons" is on the much milder scale, but is for some reason a perennial talking point in certain accessibility circles, disproportionately so. > I also don't get the whole "CTA" argument. You can call out links without using button-like styling on them. And a presenter's intent is irrelevant. I could build an atrocious site that is only usable by very high-functioning individuals because of the design, but I can't hide behind "that wasn't my intent". This sis specifically in relation to 1.3.1 requiring that things that have been conveyed through styling/presentation must have a matching markup structure. But if the author wasn't trying to convey anything in particular with their styling/presentation, it's then a bit of a stretch to invoke 1.3.1 as a possible point where "links styled a bit too button-like" can be failed. But again, that then falls under the handwavy subjective interpretation of what is and isn't "conveyed through styling"... P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Friday, 19 November 2021 19:28:19 UTC